European Union Referendum Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: HM Treasury

European Union Referendum Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts
Tuesday 16th June 2015

(8 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gerald Howarth Portrait Sir Gerald Howarth
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I heard my hon. Friend’s intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, and he makes a valid point that we need to address. However, the purpose of amendment 10 is crystal clear: it is to stop the European Commission getting involved or funding third parties to get involved in the campaign. If a company in his constituency that received support under a European Commission scheme five years ago, three years ago, last year or whenever chose to back one side or the other, one would not be able to say that it was doing so because it had received money from the European Commission, but if the European Commission started to fund organisations that were involved in the campaign, that would be unacceptable. We do not want it interfering.

Bob Stewart Portrait Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Would it really matter, because surely both sides will get just about equal funding? Where the funding comes from does not matter in the end if both sides get the same rough amount.

--- Later in debate ---
Bob Stewart Portrait Bob Stewart
- Hansard - -

Should there not be a clear gap between the offering that the Government have brought back to give to the people and the start of the campaign, which we may wish to call purdah? During the short campaign before the general election, which could be seen as a model, both sides—I am talking just about Labour and the Conservatives—suddenly started to produce new policies. We cannot have that; we want a clear offering followed by a gap, and then the start of the campaign. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Jacob Rees-Mogg Portrait Mr Rees-Mogg
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and that point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. An uncharacteristically weak argument must have been given to the Minister for Europe to read out—he could not have made so poor an argument himself—when he said that if the negotiations have finished it would be very difficult for the Government not to be able to explain them immediately before the election. It cannot be that we will have the referendum two weeks after the negotiations have been concluded. That would be preposterous. There has to be a considerable period of time beforehand, so that what has happened can be understood, debated and campaigned upon. That must mean a period of a minimum of 28 days, as currently set out, but realistically we are going to need three months at the end of the negotiations before we can move straight to the referendum.